The Instigator
dsturgill880
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
oprahskid
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Politic... The Penal Judicial System Reform

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 995 times Debate No: 1499
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

dsturgill880

Pro

I beleive that the media representation that depicts free lawyers for criminals is misleading because to many Americans beleive that civil law is also free. Further more, too many Americans are losing property and other rights because there is no such thing as a free civil lawyer.
I am impressed by the bravery of our policemen in making arrests in car chases, bank robberies, and I understand that they must be tough and sometimes even brutal in these instances.
However, the media shows no honest representation of the vast numbers of losers in civil courts; and what is even more dangerous is outcomes of trials that is biased politically. Particularly when either litigants attorney may have a secret agreement with the other litigants attorney.
oprahskid

Con

I'm assuming you endorse a Penal Judicial System Reform, but you don't specifically address what this reform will entail. I assume this reform is limited to:
1. Getting rid of court appointed lawyers.

I can't see how the claims you make later on can be addressed by reform. If you offer a method of reform, I will gladly debate it.

Your case starts out with the incorrect premise that everyone who is given a "free civil lawyer" is a criminal. The initial reason people are assigned lawyers is to ascertain whether or not they are indeed criminals or simply an innocent who stands accused.

I will start by refuting your points (as far as I could distinguish them).

1. "Too many Americans are losing property and other rights because there is no such thing as a free civil lawyer."

Subpoint A:The most important thing our justice system can achieve is an accurate trial with a suiting punishment. That is justice. That being said, due to human error 100% accuracy is something that is impossible to attain. Instead, our justice system settles for creating arbitrary rules that ensure fairness. The paramount responsibility of our justice system is to ensure fairness in the course of attaining accuracy. This entails making sure everyone is represented by someone who understands the law. Of course, it's impossible to make sure that everyone's lawyer will be of equal skill. We can however ensure that everyone has a lawyer who can properly defend them.

Claim: Making sure everyone has a lawyer is important to establish a level playing field, which is necessary for fairness.

Subpoint B: The Social Contract states that people give up some rights to ensure other rights are protected. For example, we give up taxes so that we may enjoy social services. Our Constitution promises us the right to a fair trial. For the protection of this right, we give up (to some extent) the right to property (taxes). Since we give up these taxes anyway, and we are first and foremost promised a fair trial, it isn't an infringement of our rights to use our taxes to fund the court appointed lawyer system.

Claim: The right to a fair trial outweighs the potential right to property.

Beyond the getting rid of the free lawyers, I don't see what reforms you endorse. So I will approach this debate through two perspectives:
1. (First and foremost) Ensuring that the right's guarenteed to us by our social contract are upheld.
2. Making sure Utility is best served.
Debate Round No. 1
dsturgill880

Pro

dsturgill880 forfeited this round.
oprahskid

Con

My opponent didn't want a debate, he just wanted to make a statement. Therefor, neither of us should win.
Debate Round No. 2
dsturgill880

Pro

dsturgill880 forfeited this round.
oprahskid

Con

I take that back. He posted a debate topic, I refuted.
He didn't provide an argument (for whatever reason).
As I made a case that countered everything he put forth, I arrive at the conclusion that I pwned.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
I agree with you SperoAmicus, but not until I die, as I'm working on becoming a lawyer. :D
Posted by SperoAmicus 9 years ago
SperoAmicus
Lawyers are middle-men, economic sinks, and we should seek to abolish them at every point possible.

The answer for civil matters is not free lawyers, but agreements which present evidence before an agreed-upon impartial legal arbitrator without lawyers from either side.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
dsturgill880oprahskidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by Cooperman88 9 years ago
Cooperman88
dsturgill880oprahskidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by oprahskid 9 years ago
oprahskid
dsturgill880oprahskidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03